Talk:Major film studio/Archives/2017

Mini-Major Section

... seems to need several changes. The first two are hard to argue with: Relativity is active once again, and STX Entertainment (as noted above) now qualifies (and has been added while I was writing this!).

The bigger problem is that the listed films are a mixed bunch, not all of which fit the stated definition of a mini-major. First, there's Lionsgate, which, as I argue above, is in practice a major studio, but is still regarded as a mini-major by the Hollywood Reporter, and for defensible reasons (outlined at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lionsgates-fraught-fall-deepwater-horizon-932790, where they are explicitly contrasted with the majors). Next there's the Weinstein Company, which is actually a leading distributor of indie films that does a small amount of highly-targeted production. Then there are the pure mini-majors (the two just mentioned, Open Road, and CBS). Two of the last three firms in the table do not do their own distribution, and hence are not playing the same game as the first dozen studios. It's clear Amblin and MGM are considered mini-majors because of their pedigrees. And finally there's Gaumont, which acts as a major studio within a much smaller market but otherwise doesn't even challenge the U.S. mini-majors in size. I assume they are listed and not StudioCanal because someone once referred to them as a "mini-major" while no one has used the term for StudioCanal. I think this is taking the "no original research" rule way too literally. It doesn't mean you trust every source, even when they're inconsistent or demonstrably wrong.

A lot of readers will just look at the table of mini-majors and view them automatically as representing a homogeneous set (as I did at first). I think the table should be re-ordered to group the distributors together, and Gaumont removed since it makes no sense to include them but not StudioCanal. And I think the opening definition needs to be rewritten, e.g.:

A "mini-major studio (or "mini-major") is a large film production company that attempts to compete directly with the major studios by distributing their own films, or is regarded as particularly significant because of its corporate or executive history. The term has also been applied inconsistently to significant foreign studios that distribute their films domestically, such as Gaumont.

I will leave the actual changes to those with a longer history here. I will note that I don't think it's original research to determine objectively the meaning of a term such as "mini-major." People use terms like that because they find it useful to do so. It's their job to report about the industry in a way they think their readers will understand, and it's decidedly not their job to bother to define terms they believe their readers will understand intuitively. If it's clear why some companies are being called "mini-major" even though they don't fit the narrower definition, I think it's kosher to state the inference that was expected of their readers.Emvan (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Europacorp USA is a mini-major. They produce, and distribute in the US, and have been labeled a mini-major: http://deadline.com/2016/09/europa-corp-luc-besson-fundamental-films-1201828553/, among other places.

Amazon Studios is worth watching as a type B (Amblin-like) mini-major. They obviously have the financial resources to be a mini (even if they continue to lose money every year). They're only producing one or two feature films a year, however (Chi-Raq, Elvis & Nixon, Paterson) and are not doing their own distribution (even though BoxOfficeMojo is listing them as such). Emvan (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a definition of mini-major that leads with the ability to distribute. http://filmescape.com/what-is-a-mini-major-studio

Amblin has been called a mini-major precisely once, http://www.screendaily.com/news/spielbergs-amblin-chinas-alibaba-enter-strategic-partnership/5110161.article, and since they have never distributed their own films, that's what is technically called "an ignorant mistake." References to MGM as a mini-major date back to when they were doing their own distribution. They no longer do so. Neither belong on the list.

OTOH, both Gaumont and StudioCanal are consistently called "French mini-majors." http://www.latribune.fr/journal/archives/edition-du-2005/rendez-vous-perso/200169/studio-canal-construit-une-mini-major-europeennegros-projet.html, http://variety.com/2009/film/news/studiocanal-extends-global-reach-1118010675/, among others. They distribute and produce in France, but not in the U.S., so the "mini-" refers to the size of their distribution market. It and Gaumont need to be listed after the first 7 U.S. minis, separated by a darker line. Emvan (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Film Escape.com is not the only one that defines mini-major, Variety that is citing in the article and is the major entertainment news source defines it thus: "Big film production companies that are supposedly smaller than the majors although such companies as Miramax, Polygram and New Line compete directly with the big studios; 'The producers are in talks with several studios, including the mini-major New Line.'" (Although most are not functioning or separate from a major).

The table does indicate which distribute, which will soon not included CBS, who dropped in-house distribution for a contract with Lionsgate. As the market share column is based on the distribution market share and determine their position in the table (although the table is sortable).

Probable with us defining mini-major is that an editor decided that he was the determiner of who was and wasn't a mini-major and major instead of relying on sources. It took several rounds of the page being under page protection than a block of this editor so sources could be added. I think that the "The standings" falls in this area of the editor "deciding" and is out of date thus it should be removed. Neither sourced definition indicated at what level (%) over what time makes a studio a mini-major or a major. Lionsgate was indicated to be short in the distribution factor in that it distributions only in a few markets overseas to be a major (while expressly consider their designation as premature in doing so). Spshu (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

EuropaCorp and Legendary Pictures

EuropaCorp and Legendary Pictures are getting close to the Mini-major status, aren't they? --LegerPrime (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

See above about EuropaCorp. Either you have a source that they are or you do not. Legendary is considered an Independent financier that allies themselves with a major (financing a film slate), with WB then Universal. So, I don't see the entertainment news considering them as a mini-major because they are not competing with the majors but as an ally. If say Dalian Wanda Group has AMC puts Legendary together with partially owned Open Road Films, which a primarily a distributor, then they might have a mini-major. Spshu (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Dalian Wanda Group

Shouldn't they be listed in Mini-major with their main Mini-major studio unit being listed as Wanda Media and Open Road Films (50%) and Legendary Pictures being listed under "Other divisions and brands"?

--LegerPrime (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)